By Daniel Bobinski

Ever notice that some people use anger to try to control others? Said another way, when something is happening and a person doesn’t want it to happen, some people become angry and intimidate others to turn the situation to their favor.

Why do these people choose anger to get their way? Because it’s efficient. Anger gets quick responses. Fearing what an angry parent might do, children rapidly stop misbehaving. And I’ll bet that, even as an adult, you’ve heard more than one person say, “Don’t do that because so-and-so will get angry.”

By itself, anger is not a bad emotion. In fact, when we’re very young, anger keeps us alive. Think about it. Very young children have needs, but they can’t talk, so they use anger to get their needs met. If you’ve been around newborns, you’ve seen this. A baby fusses and parents quickly try to figure out what the baby wants.

Food? A diaper change? A nap? Displaying anger is how small, non-verbal children gets their needs met.

But there comes a time when children learn to talk, and when that happens it’s time to wean them away from using anger to get what they want. Good parents teach their children to express their wants and needs verbally. For example, instead of children fussing when they’re hungry, we teach them to say, “I’m hungry, may I have something to eat please?”

Think about it. Temper tantrums in children are simply attempts at using what’s worked in the past: Relying on anger to get what they want. If parents give in, they’re teaching their children it’s okay to continue using anger for that purpose. However, if parents set firm boundaries, children eventually stop relying on anger.

Unfortunately, some parents don’t set those boundaries, and their children continue using anger to get their way well into adulthood.

Some of those children grow up to be Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi.

Despite their ages (77 and 79, respectively), they are still using anger and acting like bullies to try to get their way.

Biden continues his childish track record

Let’s start with Joe Biden talking with an 83-year old farmer in Iowa this past week. The farmer is inquiring about Biden’s age as a factor in his decision-making capabilities, as well as Biden’s son, Hunter, getting a job with a Ukrainian natural gas company. The farmer (a Democrat) equated this to, “selling access to the White House.” If you watch a video of the event, everything the farmer brings up has been in the news.

Biden’s response is textbook bullying, using anger and insults to get his way – which is avoid answering the question. As the farmer is talking, the former Vice President is standing about 15 feet from him. After Biden interrupts the farmer and calls him “a damn liar” for repeating what’s been on the news, Biden then takes five steps toward the man, glaring at him as he mocks him with indirect insults.

Instead of addressing the issues the farmer brings up, Biden starts by calling the man, “Jack,” which is slang for “an annoying person,” and stemming from the word, “jackass.” Biden then says, “Let’s do push-ups together, let’s run, let’s do whatever you want to do. Let’s take an IQ test.”

Biden even uses the word “fat,” (the farmer carries extra weight), but wisely stops himself from continuing with any other descriptors.

This is how a former Vice President deals with the legitimate concerns of a voter? Biden wants to prove he’s capable of serving as President because he can do more push-ups and has a higher IQ than the 83-year old farmer?

Biden’s response was absolutely childish. The incident reminded me of something I experienced 35 years ago. A co-worker and I had a disagreement about something, but rather than discuss the matter, the coworker said, “Let’s go outside and settle this right now.”

As I watched Biden in that video, my thoughts were the same as my response to that co-worker: “What, are we in junior high?”

Allow me to quote from a guy who wrote the majority of the New Testament: “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.”

Sadly, Biden’s childish response to the farmer is not his first display of choosing threats and intimidation instead of an intellectual discussion of issues. Back in October of 2016, when a member of the press asked Biden if he wished he were debating then-candidate Trump, Biden replied, “No, I wish we were in high school and I could take him behind the gym.”

Two years later, in 2018, Biden was still showing his immaturity, saying, “I’d take [Trump] behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.”

Joe, your approach to discussing issues – using intimidation and threats of physical violence – are clearly methods some immature children use to get their way. You’re 77. Time to grow up.

Nancy Pelosi also chooses threats

Speaker Pelosi is another Congressional representative who often chooses intimidation over reason. Several weeks ago, Sinclair reporter David Rosen asked Pelosi about the President’s rights in the impeachment process.

Rosen: And so, I wonder if you can explain to the American people why the legal rights of a whistleblower should prevail in this political setting over those of President Trump, who should normally enjoy a right to confront his accuser?

Pelosi: Well, let me just say this – I will say to you, Mr. Republican talking points, what I said to the President of the United States. When you talk about the whistleblower, you are coming into my wheelhouse. I have more experience in intelligence than anybody in the Congress – anybody who has ever served. Twenty-five years on the committee as a top Democrat, ex officio, as leader and speaker. I was there when we wrote the whistleblower rules.

To dissect that at a mere surface level, Pelosi first insults the reporter (“Mr. Republican talking points”), then she tries to intimidate by puffing herself up. You could paraphrase the rest of her response as, “Don’t mess with me, I’m more experienced in intelligence than anybody.”

In other words, she intimidates him to get her way, which, like Biden, is to not answer the question.

Then there’s a December 5 incident this past week, during which the Speaker really lost her cool.

Pelosi had just finished a five-minute speech announcing her reasons for moving forward with impeachment proceedings. It was full of false patriotism, false accusations, slurred words, and deceptive reasoning, but after Pelosi finished and was walking away from the podium, reporter David Rosen asked her a question: “Do you hate the President, Madam Speaker?”

Pelosi whirled around, pointed her finger at Rosen and kept shaking her finger as she took five steps toward him, saying, “I don’t hate anybody.” She then lectured him, saying, “I was raised Catholic – I don’t hate anybody. Not anybody in the world. Don’t you accuse me of -–”

To this, Rosen replied, “I didn’t accuse you–” and she cut him off, saying, “You did. You did.”

No, Nancy, Rosen didn’t accuse you of anything. The Speaker doth protest too much, methinks.

Rosen then stated that the reason for his question was based on something another Representative had said. Rather than just answer the man with a “No, I don’t hate the President,” Pelosi went back to the podium so she could wield a position of authority. “As a Catholic, I resent your using the word ‘hate’ in a sentence that addresses me.”

I encourage you to watch the video to see all of how Pelosi became unhinged. She claimed she prays for the President “all the time,” and closed with, “So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.” [emphasis added]

Don’t mess with me?” Nancy, was that a threat?

By the way, just what Pelosi prays about regarding the President, she didn’t say.

Let me repeat what I said earlier about anger. It’s an intimidation tactic people use because something is happening that they don’t want to happen.

Hypothesis on Joe and Nancy’s recent anger

As I’ve written in the past, I think a lot of politicians want to see President Trump gone because he’s been faithful in keeping his campaign promises, and one of those promises is draining The Swamp. And The Swamp is large and deep. In fact, even with a Part 1 and a Part 2 I wrote on Swamp corruption, those pieces merely skim the surface.

My hypothesis regarding Joe and Nancy’s recent outbursts is they have a lot to hide, but they know their deeds are about to get uncovered. So, like undisciplined children, they’re using anger and intimidation to try to get their way.

In support of this hypothesis, consider the recent timeline of events. On Thursday, December 5th, Pelosi announced she’s moving forward with impeachment, even though the investigation is still ongoing. Why? And why would she go off the rails so much on a reporter for asking her a yes or no question?

We’ve already established that Joe Biden has a history of childish anger, but Thursday, December 5th also happened to be the date Joe went off on that Iowa farmer.

What is happening that neither Joe nor Nancy wants happening?

Well, two days earlier, on Tuesday, December 3rd, eight people were indicted for making millions of dollars in illegal contributions to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff, Corey Booker, and others.

What does that mean? Indictments on activities such as money laundering are no longer just talk. They are really happening. And despite Joe and Nancy repeatedly telling us nobody being above the law, my guess is that neither Joe nor Nancy want those indictments happening, nor any similar crimes coming to light.

Furthermore, there’s something else I’m pretty sure they don’t want happening: Americans reading the Inspector General’s report on FISA abuse. It’s my guess that Joe and Nancy are just a little afraid of what will happen to them in the fallout from the details in that report.

In closing, I think we can expect to see more outbursts and intimidation attempts from Deep State players. But as we do, let’s just remind people like Joe and Nancy of what they tell us often: No one is above the law.

 

Footnote: I want to say that true patriots should not be intimidated by anyone’s anger. These days, when someone tells me, “Be careful, so-and-so will get angry,” my response is usually, “So what?” If someone has a disagreement, let it be discussed rationally, without bullying and intimidation. But if someone chooses to be a childish bully, I’m all too happy to name the game for what it is. Joe and Nancy, I’m looking at you.

# #

Daniel Bobinski, M.Ed. is a certified behavioral analyst, best-selling author, columnist, corporate trainer, and a popular keynote speaker. In addition to working with teams and individuals to help them achieve workplace excellence through improving their emotional intelligence and improving the way they do training, he’s also a veteran and a Christian Libertarian who believes in the principles of free market capitalism while standing firmly against crony capitalism. Daniel writes on both workplace issues and political issues for multiple publications. Reach Daniel for help with your workplace through his website, MyWorkplaceExcellence.com. For things political, use @newbookofdaniel on Twitter.